{¶1}
Appellant-father appeals the decision of the Jefferson County
Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division terminating his
parental rights and granting permanent custody of the child
A.E.B. to Children Services. He argues the decision was
against the manifest weight of the evidence based upon his
allegation that the agency failed to show the absence of a
relative who was able to take legal custody of the child,
citing a statute pertaining to an orphaned child. For the
following reasons, the trial court's decision is
affirmed.

STATEMENT
OF THE CASE

{¶2}
When the child was born on March 12, 2017, he tested positive
for cocaine, benzodiazapene, and Subutex. The child was
transferred to a hospital in Pittsburgh as he required
treatment for withdrawal, which thereafter continued at a
children's transitional center until his release on April
30, 2017, when he entered foster care. Upon the child's
birth, the mother expressed her wish to permanently surrender
her parental rights and allow the child to be placed for
adoption. She received surrender counseling. No father was
named on the birth certificate, and the mother said the
father was unknown. The day after the child's birth,
Appellant called the agency stating he may be the father of
the child. He did not provide an address or phone number.

{¶3}
On March 21, 2017, the agency filed a dependency complaint
and sought permanent custody or in the alternative temporary
custody. The same day, the court conducted a shelter care
hearing and a probable cause hearing. The mother completed
the permanent surrender in open court. The court found
probable cause the child was dependent and granted emergency
temporary custody to the agency. The agency filed a motion
for paternity testing of Appellant. The adjudicatory hearing
was set for April 7, 2017; Appellant was originally served by
publication as his address was unknown. On March 27, 2017,
Appellant appeared at the agency and signed a notice of
address and phone number, which was filed with the court. At
this time, Appellant was personally served with the summons,
which explained how to obtain court-appointed counsel.

{¶4}
Appellant appeared unrepresented at the April 7, 2017 hearing
and agreed to genetic testing, which the court ordered in a
judgment entry filed the same day. The adjudicatory hearing
was continued as Appellant asked for time to obtain counsel,
but he then appeared unrepresented at the May 5, 2017
rescheduled adjudicatory hearing. An agency caseworker
testified about the child's situation. On May 9, 2017,
the child was adjudicated dependent in a magistrate's
decision, which found the agency made reasonable efforts to
prevent placement of the child outside of the home including
a search for relatives. No objection to the magistrate's
decision was filed, and the court entered judgment on the
dependency adjudication on May 24, 2017.

{¶5}
Appellant presented himself at the agency for genetic testing
on May 17, 2017. However, he did not appear for the
dispositional hearing two days later. In a May 22, 2017
decision, the magistrate granted temporary custody to the
agency, stating the agency's reasonable efforts included
a search for relatives. No objection was filed, and the court
entered judgment on the temporary custody disposition on June
6, 2017.

{¶6}
The genetic test result (dated May 19, 2017) confirmed
Appellant's paternity and was mailed to Appellant by the
agency at the residence he provided in the notice of address.
The result was filed with the court, and on May 30, 2017, the
court entered a paternity judgment. The caseworker thereafter
repeatedly found Appellant's phone number unreachable and
repeatedly attempted to visit the address he provided. On one
visit, a person told the caseworker Appellant no longer lived
there but a message would be delivered. Appellant called the
caseworker two days later and asked why she was looking for
him. (Tr. 20). During this June 14, 2017 phone conversation,
Appellant admitted he received (from his sister) the
paternity result mailed to the address on file.
(Appellant's sister testified she previously lived at
that address.)

{¶7}
On June 15, 2017, Appellant attended a meeting at the agency
with his girlfriend, and a case plan for reunification and
visitation was discussed. When asked why he did not contact
the agency after receiving the paternity result, he said he
had been busy and left his phone in a friend's car. (Tr.
21). He was unemployed and occasionally worked for a
temporary job service. He reported he was living at his
girlfriend's apartment and disclosed this was contrary to
the rules of her public housing tenancy as a result of his
criminal record. (Tr. 22). He was fingerprinted for a
criminal background check which showed he was 25 years old
and had convictions for: assault (charged in 2016, 2014, and
2013); fourth-degree felony carrying a concealed weapon
(charged in 2011 and 2012), the second of which resulted in
him serving time in prison in 2013/2014; and fifth-degree
felony receiving stolen property for which he served time in
prison in 2015/2016. (Ex. D).

{¶8}
During the meeting at the agency, Appellant named a clinic in
Pittsburgh which he said was treating him for opiate
addiction by providing him Suboxone. The agency instructed
him to release his medical information from the clinic, but
he never provided evidence he was being treated by this
clinic. The agency also instructed him to submit to urine
testing the next day in order to determine whether the
Wednesday visitations would be supervised or unsupervised,
but he never provided a urine test result. (Tr. 22, 36-38).
At the June 15, 2017 meeting, Appellant informed the agency
he did not have relatives willing to file for custody or to
come speak with the agency regarding the child, but he said
he was going to file a motion for custody in the juvenile
court. (Tr. 27, 32). He did not do so, and he did not return
to the agency.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;{&para;9}
The caseworker unsuccessfully attempted a home visit at the
girlfriend's apartment and then called the father's
girlfriend on June 26, 2017. Appellant returned the call
asking why she was calling him. (Tr. 22). She informed him
the clinic would not release any information to the agency
with a faxed release as the clinic's policy required any
client to personally present the release to the clinic. When
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.